AMD or Intel?

Islam or Christianity? Capitalism or Socialism? NVIDIA or ATI? AMD or Intel?
All of these are basically third-rail type questions.

For HTPC, either mfgr's mid-range CPU's can give you smooth playback and low CPU utilization depending on OS, drivers, GPU, etc. Their high-end lines are generally overkill for HTPC applications.

If you're talking purely hypothetical, then it could be argued that AMD has closed/eliminated the gap with the latest Phenom II; others would maintain that Intel retains the lead at the bleeding edge ($$). You also need to look at CPU instructions per watt, if you want to add power consumption to the equation.

A lot of us (myself included) just like rooting for the underdog (AMD). Besides, you can get an 89 watt AMD Athlon64 6000+ for less than $80. Unless you're setting-up a production line for h.264 to mkv conversion, and plan to run it 7x24, that CPU can handle anything HTPC related you can throw at it and then some.

Bob

I would go with Intel. Given that the new Q45 chipset has built in support for HD audio / video, you might able to make with with an entry level video card (which should save you some watts).

Q45 chipset:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15653

Also, from what I had read, you do some serious overclocking on this chipset if you are so inclined.

I am eyeing the Aone MP45-DR with a G45 chipset because my HTPC needs to go into a cabinet. The mobile form factor means that I have to shell out the extra $$, but c'est-la-vie ...

It's mostly personal preference but generally AMD is known for giving great performance-to-price ratios. Intels generally provide a bit more horsepower at a lower power consumption with greater latitude to overclock but they are a bit pricier.

As long as you have a decently powered GPU and software that takes advantage of HA, then either company can provide a CPU with enough horsepower for almost any HTPC need.